Let me explain in terms of reality which may likely not be a language these economists can speak or interpret;

Communists raise taxes creating a false bubble for a number of reasons...one of which is to fool a few idiot economists. The others range from gaining even more power our Constitution forbids them allowing them to overreach and manipulate.

The only good thing to come from this Democrat's Depression is that they can no longer claim they now what they're doing. They all created this cluster and since this situation is so grave they will finally have to pay for it instead of simply walking away from another clear regression on our society.

Mark my words, there's no where they can hide from their own assinine stupidity and failed idiotology.

Between Clinton signing the law requiring lenders to submit to elected officials communist pursuits of redistributing our country's wealth by handing out homes and then protecting it from several republican attempts to stop it, NObama himself sued lenders back in 1994 to do the same thing!

This brink of destruction, this looming Democrat's Depression of 2008 was handed to us by the very people this article suggests has the first clue of what they're doing!!

The best example is the subprime mortgage crisis which hit us under the current presidency. The problem however goes back to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules. In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.(http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20080...)

The Economist's findings are not surprising. The more you learn the more you see the world as complex, the less likely you are to apply unbending frameworks to situations. The farther you go in economics the more you realize that it is hard to say what factors produce economic growth. Sometimes certain factors work, sometimes they don't. Once you realize that, it becomes more difficult to cling religiously to certain economic doctrines. Too bad so many people who fancy themselves economists only take the first couple introductory courses (micro and macro) that essentially function as propaganda for conservative ideology.

Dr.Parker investigated the 'lag effect' by following the effects of republican presidency on GDP for another four years after election of a new democratic president and essentially found that economy does not get much better within four years. He does not prove that a lag effect may occur even later. What I mean is that Democrats first have to make changes before they can screw up the economy, that may take some time. I would me more interested in the same 'lag-effect' after democratic presidency, which Dr. Parker did not mention in his paper.

If you want to read Dr. Parker's paper, it is found at --http://www.business.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf -- in the paper he addresses your concerns and does more analysis based upon the idea of lag. His conclusion was unaffected.

It is of interest also to me about the apparent correlation between stock prices and party of the President. It seems we can give up on NFC/AFC and women's skirt lengths.

This data is faulty because the effects of political changes under either presidency may not show effect until the next presidential election. For instance economic bubbles that developed during the Clinton era burst in the years of the Bush administration. Some conservative experts believe Jimmy Carter ruined the economy and Reagan saved it. The answer to all these questions is probably a little bit more complex than a temporal relationship between economy and presidency.

I've recently discovered some interesting data on the economic performance in the USA comparing when the Democrats or Republicans hold the Presidency. I found a great paper by Elliot Parker, Ph.D. in economics, who found that Democrats clearly grow the economy faster. In fact, he reports that since 1929, the Democrats presided over real per capita GDP increases of 3.8%, while Republicans managed a paltry 0.7%. In another paper, two economists looked at stock market yields between the two parties. From 1927-2008, the Return on US stocks vs. T-bills averaged 16% per annum for Democratic Presidents, and 0% for Republicans. Indeed, under Clinton stocks went up 222% and so far under George W Bush, down 3%.

My 86 year old mother has a saying, "If you want to live like a rich Republican, vote for the Democrats." It is no surprise to me that these economists favored Obama.

Here is my opinion on the two candidate's economic proposals:1). Social Security payroll taxes: a. Under the current tax laws, you do not pay SS payroll taxes on your income over $97, 500 (year 2008). This cap was placed back in the 1930’s when SS was initially setup, and the wages were relatively very low. Over the years, incomes have gone up astronomically, particularly, for certain individuals. But, our lawmakers refuse to raise the cap proportionately because of the pressures from various lobbyists. Our SS system could be saved very easily by eliminating the cap altogether (although Mr. Barack Obama has proposed raising the cap to $250,000). It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama, if elected, overcomes the pressure from special interest groups. b. Republican candidate Mr. McCain’s proposal, on the other hand, is the same as the one that was proposed by Mr. Bush. Under their proposal, younger workers will be able to invest part of their SS payroll taxes in stocks, etc. i. One, this proposal, if implemented, will be the end of the SS system as few know today. For millions of Americans SS checks are their only source of income. What about showing empathy for your fellow citizens? ii. Two, it shows that the Republicans cater only to the interests of the Wall Street and businesses. Can you imagine how the under informed and under privileged individuals will be taken for a ride by the Wall Street (to invest in their stocks, mutual funds)? Does it sound familiar to the subprime mortgage scams?

There's a "slight" problem with the numbers, re: 360 economists endorsed McCain's economic plan.This from Crooks & Liars (www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/07/mccain-and-his-gang-of-300-economists/)By Steve Benen Sunday Jul 06, 2008 10:00pmLast month, when economists, en masse, concluded that John McCain’s idea for a “gas-tax holiday” didn’t make a lick of sense, McCain told a group of voters that economists aren’t to be trusted.This morning, McCain decided that he actually loves economists.U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released a statement signed by over 300 professional economists in support of John McCain’s Jobs for America economic plan. The list includes Nobel Prize winners, business economists with experience in the private sector, policy economists with experience in government and academic economists from major universities and state and community colleges.Considering the fact that McCain’s economic plan is rather ridiculous, I suppose it’s rather impressive that his campaign pulled together over 300 professional economists (I’m going to assume that’s accurate; I didn’t check the credentials of the names) to endorse this nonsense.But as it turns out, there’s a catch. As Ben Smith reported, “The statement [signed by the economists] leaves out two big chunks of McCain’s economic argument: the gas tax holiday and his promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term — there’s literally nothing in the release that mentions the deficit or national debt.”In other words, the economists didn’t endorse his economic plan; they endorsed his plan after taking out two of the more transparently stupid centerpiece ideas of the plan.Doesn’t that tell us quite a bit? The McCain campaign couldn’t even get like-minded economist allies to endorse his economic plan without quietly allowing them to ignore two of the proposals McCain claims to take seriously?For that matter, here’s another question. For the next four months, how many times will the McCain campaign and his media base argue, “This economic plan must be pretty good if it’s been endorsed by over 300 economists”? If anyone’s willing to set an over/under, bet on the over. Trust me.

This is a very biased polling. A total of 142 responded out of 683, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither.That means only 14 respondents were Republicans. Out of these 14, 3 favored McCain versus 6 that favored Obama. This data is statistically very susceptible to biases. For instance if only three more respondents out of the 541 non-respondents were republicans in favor of McCain the percentages would have been already even. This polling tells you only one thing: economic research associates that are willing to respond to a polling are more likely democrats and favor Obama's economic plans. Interestingly even some democrat economists still prefer McCain.

The problem with your survey is that is was conducted not of randomly selected US economists but from "America’s premier association of applied academic economists." The pool of academic economists, as your survey reveals, as do the pool of "academic"-anyone in the US, tend to be predominantly liberal/Democrat. And as much as we would like to believe otherwise, these people of math and science are just as susceptible to bias as the rest of us.

'Too bad Greenspan didn't stick with the wisdom of discouraging "irrational exuberance." Somewhere along the line, he got gulled into the argument that whatever savings rate the market settled on was "right." '

Unfortunately Mr. Greenspan was in the position a bit too long. My most vivid memory of him was back in the 90's when everyone was saying that a recession had begun but he kept saying that inflation was th biggest concern. Not his best moment.

McCain is an old man who showed tremendous lack of judgment in chosing Palin. It took her six years and five different schools to graduate from college. She is totally unqualified and the Republican Party should demand that she replaced.

One big wrong selection took McCain off focus, but damage control. Obama demonstrated his intelligence - fresh idea - willingness to listen - surrounded by intellectuals...The article was very informative and proves the above. Now, America has to get to work. Clean up the mess... make accountable executives repay to taxpayers... $39billion in bonuses by 5 big investment firms in past 5 years per local media... Yes MimsyBorogrove, we need more good Law Enforcement Compliance Officers... of course, the main body as well.Why not...

WHY is McCains' disregard for economists "healthy" as one poster put it?McCain seems to disregard anything that is not in direct line with his personal opinion or world view. But more importantly to me:Why is the NY Times not writing about McCains asscociation with G. Gordon Liddy, a CONVICTED felon,who went to jail for 4 years for the Watergate break-in, AND who plotted to kill a Journalist (didnt happen) and alsoadvised Americans to shoot Federal Law Enforcement Officers?WHY?